4 ms·

You've got to wonder why exactly we still (in 2014) have to contort ourselves around a single threaded model. So that we end up with this level of complexity.

You've got to wonder why exactly we still (in 2014) have to contort ourselves around a single threaded model. So that we end up with this level of complexity. JavaScript is great with data but is becoming a monstrosity when it comes to concurrency. Can we all stop and have a deep look at how other languages deal with concurrency. I have (like many of you) used many different languages and have played with several different concurrency models. The bottom line for me is that multiple threads + concurrency frameworks (i.e. no exposed concurrency primitives) are still the best solution. I appreciate JavaScript is trying to avoid deadlocking etc. but in modern concurrency frameworks this just isn't an issue. Seriously we're now contorting ourselves around dogma. Please browser folk, come up with a decent solution to save us all of this. VOTED DOWN FOR HERESY :-)

jlongster 12y ago
I think you've completely missed the point. CSP channels are in fact what are used for elegant parallelism on Clojure. The processes are backed by a thread-pool and can be run concurrently. Whether or not it's backed by real threads or not is completely opaque.
- neilellis 12y ago
  Do you feel that: var ch = chan(); go(function() { var val; while((val = yield take(ch)) !== csp.CLOSED) { console.log(val); } }); go(function() { yield put(ch, 1); yield take(timeout(1000)); yield put(ch, 2); ch.close(); }); Is clean and easy to understand. That's the point I'm making is that this contorting around a problem. I don't want my code littered with all this annotation just so that it can be synchronous. Also I'm not picking on the one solution, I just want everyone to take a step back and see if we're really heading in the right direction here.
  - jlongster 12y ago
    It's worth stepping back, and it's far easier than the alternatives for sure. (note that with macros you could even have nicer syntax). But yeah, if you're arguing for real threads, that's a different discussion. Even so, you'll have to do similar coordination between threads which will look similar.
  - jerf 12y ago
    Unfortunately, trying to add true threading to the browser in Javascript is so, so far in the direction of "insane" that it's not an option, so we're sort of stuck in the browser. Note that I am deliberately referencing that whole set of qualifications: "true threading in the browser in Javascript". Drop any chunk of that and it becomes less insane; for instance, WebWorkers drops "true" and gives a very restricted version of threading. Threading JS in general wouldn't be any harder or easier than threading any other dynamic language in theory (though in general those sorts of languages have a really poor track record, but only in practice, not in theory [1]), but adding "in the browser" is a big problem. Maybe if Servo works properly it will be feasible, but until then it would just be a nightmare. But I would certainly agree that if you have a choice, such as on the backend server, and you choose Javascript for concurrency, you're making a very poor choice. It just isn't what the language was meant for. [1]: As near as I can tell, they all tried to retrofit threading onto themselves a very long ways into their development (many years if not decades after birth), and the result- vary from "failure" to "barely functional". However if one set out to create a new language in the dynamic family and made threading a concern from day 1 there's no reason I can see you couldn't succeed. Elixir would be a sort of existence proof. It's the retrofitting that failed moreso than the general idea.
  - tracker1 12y ago
    not quite as much... though using "async" as the main method name, with the fat-arrow syntax for an anonymous function would be a little more clear... same for using let instead of var here. async(()=>{ ... }); It's a bit more terse, and implies that the method will be run asynchronously from the parent.
swannodette 12y ago
It's not clear to me that you actually read the article since a large part of it is about elegantly dealing with streams of UI events such as mouse movement without resorting to callbacks. Not sure how multithreading even applies here. But if you want to talk about multithreading the model described is exactly the one embraced by a new up and coming language called Go - it's users love this stuff precisely because it's more readable than writing code with explicit threads and concurrent queues.
- neilellis 12y ago
  So I'll avoid the potential language flame war as best as I can. It is the sync on async part I am talking about (see code snippet in sub thread). The layering of synchronous constructs on an asynchronous model which only exists to support the single threaded browser model is getting very convoluted. That's the part I'm talking about. It is perfectly reasonable and trivial to support a multithreaded model in the browser if the multi-threaded code does not alter shared state. Which obviously is the intention of Web Workers and in there case there state seems to be primarily the DOM, I just feel that this is the direction we and browser developers should be looking into more and where the effort needs to be. And that Web Workers are part of the story not the story. In my experience concurrency can be kept to a remarkably simple level if either the developer or the language/framework author are willing to follow some simple constraints. In my ideal world: var x= concurrent(function(x) { return doSomething(x); })(1000); Would execute the function without any closure or access to globals (like the DOM). Now we have no shared state, so we could run this function in a parallel thread. Now add back access to stateless resources like HTTP requests and we're rocking and rolling. Web Workers just seem to be a heavy handed approach to achieving this. If there is a framework or method available to achieve this and I have missed it out of ignorance please someone correct me and show how this can be done simply. My goal is to have simpler code not to win an argument.
Lerc 12y ago
What solution would you recommend? I have given this a lot of thought and have a few ideas. Is there a venue for discussing the problem and suggesting possible solutions? In lieu of a decent forum. I'll drop my thoughts here. I have felt that the fundamental problem with JavaScript is that it cannot pre-empt. Even with its concurrency of web workers the primary example they give shows the flaw inherent in their solution http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html#a-background-number-crunching-worker http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... As a challenge, try and write a version of this worker that the owner page can switch between two number sequence algorithms(prime / Fibonacci for example). The only way you can do this is to rework the program until it's back to being a program beholden to events. You could solve most of this with a pre-emption mechanism. Allow an additional way to respond to certain inputs by registering an interrupt instead of listening to an event. function myInterrupt(preEmptedState) { interruptCounter+=1; //do something useful here setExecutionState(preEmptedState); //switch execution context back to pre-empted thread. } The parameter to the interrupt function is the execution state of the thread that was pre-empted. This can be restarted at the end of the interrupt, stored for continuation at a later time (enabling blocking), or abandoned (effectively terminating the thread). What this would need is: An execution state object, possibly an opaque object. addXXXInterruptHandler(interruptHandler) ;; XXX= Timer/Message/Input/etc. setExecutionState(newState) ;; this function would not return, it would continue the new state. createExecutionState(main) ;; generate a new execution state object ready to run the function main triggerInterrupt(interruptType) ;; Allow a tread to trigger an interrupt upon itself. If interrupts themselves are simply the running of a new execution state then TriggerInterrupt is just a special case of setInterruptState. Having this as a core would allow a huge number of higher level constructs that would enable blocking functions, and sane interactions with running processes like web workers. Yes, you would introduce the possibility of race conditions etc. but only if you actually used the new functionality. If you chose to leave it alone you would be on the old single eventy thready system that we know and hate. It would also mean you could have someone write var x=0; while(x<10) {} without it killing all scripts.
- neilellis 12y ago
  Interesting, I'd suggest that your solution would need to simplified dramatically to make it accessible or to be more under the hood. There is still a bit of room to shoot yourself in the foot. In terms of my suggestion it is simply that we need a language construct that creates a new scope without access to globals or 'this' and creates a pass by reference (i.e. deep cloned) closure. This allows for zero shared state. Then add back in access to no-shared state globals like HTTP access. Think web workers on a micro not macro scale.
silon3 12y ago
If you add shared memory threads (like in c++, c#, java) to Javascript, I'm disabling it forever.

jlongster 12y ago

I think you've completely missed the point. CSP channels are in fact what are used for elegant parallelism on Clojure. The processes are backed by a thread-pool and can be run concurrently. Whether or not it's backed by real threads or not is completely opaque.

neilellis 12y ago
Do you feel that: var ch = chan(); go(function() { var val; while((val = yield take(ch)) !== csp.CLOSED) { console.log(val); } }); go(function() { yield put(ch, 1); yield take(timeout(1000)); yield put(ch, 2); ch.close(); }); Is clean and easy to understand. That's the point I'm making is that this contorting around a problem. I don't want my code littered with all this annotation just so that it can be synchronous. Also I'm not picking on the one solution, I just want everyone to take a step back and see if we're really heading in the right direction here.
- jlongster 12y ago
  It's worth stepping back, and it's far easier than the alternatives for sure. (note that with macros you could even have nicer syntax). But yeah, if you're arguing for real threads, that's a different discussion. Even so, you'll have to do similar coordination between threads which will look similar.
- jerf 12y ago
  Unfortunately, trying to add true threading to the browser in Javascript is so, so far in the direction of "insane" that it's not an option, so we're sort of stuck in the browser. Note that I am deliberately referencing that whole set of qualifications: "true threading in the browser in Javascript". Drop any chunk of that and it becomes less insane; for instance, WebWorkers drops "true" and gives a very restricted version of threading. Threading JS in general wouldn't be any harder or easier than threading any other dynamic language in theory (though in general those sorts of languages have a really poor track record, but only in practice, not in theory [1]), but adding "in the browser" is a big problem. Maybe if Servo works properly it will be feasible, but until then it would just be a nightmare. But I would certainly agree that if you have a choice, such as on the backend server, and you choose Javascript for concurrency, you're making a very poor choice. It just isn't what the language was meant for. [1]: As near as I can tell, they all tried to retrofit threading onto themselves a very long ways into their development (many years if not decades after birth), and the result- vary from "failure" to "barely functional". However if one set out to create a new language in the dynamic family and made threading a concern from day 1 there's no reason I can see you couldn't succeed. Elixir would be a sort of existence proof. It's the retrofitting that failed moreso than the general idea.
- tracker1 12y ago
  not quite as much... though using "async" as the main method name, with the fat-arrow syntax for an anonymous function would be a little more clear... same for using let instead of var here. async(()=>{ ... }); It's a bit more terse, and implies that the method will be run asynchronously from the parent.

swannodette 12y ago

It's not clear to me that you actually read the article since a large part of it is about elegantly dealing with streams of UI events such as mouse movement without resorting to callbacks. Not sure how multithreading even applies here. But if you want to talk about multithreading the model described is exactly the one embraced by a new up and coming language called Go - it's users love this stuff precisely because it's more readable than writing code with explicit threads and concurrent queues.

neilellis 12y ago
So I'll avoid the potential language flame war as best as I can. It is the sync on async part I am talking about (see code snippet in sub thread). The layering of synchronous constructs on an asynchronous model which only exists to support the single threaded browser model is getting very convoluted. That's the part I'm talking about. It is perfectly reasonable and trivial to support a multithreaded model in the browser if the multi-threaded code does not alter shared state. Which obviously is the intention of Web Workers and in there case there state seems to be primarily the DOM, I just feel that this is the direction we and browser developers should be looking into more and where the effort needs to be. And that Web Workers are part of the story not the story. In my experience concurrency can be kept to a remarkably simple level if either the developer or the language/framework author are willing to follow some simple constraints. In my ideal world: var x= concurrent(function(x) { return doSomething(x); })(1000); Would execute the function without any closure or access to globals (like the DOM). Now we have no shared state, so we could run this function in a parallel thread. Now add back access to stateless resources like HTTP requests and we're rocking and rolling. Web Workers just seem to be a heavy handed approach to achieving this. If there is a framework or method available to achieve this and I have missed it out of ignorance please someone correct me and show how this can be done simply. My goal is to have simpler code not to win an argument.

Lerc 12y ago

What solution would you recommend? I have given this a lot of thought and have a few ideas. Is there a venue for discussing the problem and suggesting possible solutions? In lieu of a decent forum. I'll drop my thoughts here. I have felt that the fundamental problem with JavaScript is that it cannot pre-empt. Even with its concurrency of web workers the primary example they give shows the flaw inherent in their solution http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/workers.html#a-background-number-crunching-worker http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/... As a challenge, try and write a version of this worker that the owner page can switch between two number sequence algorithms(prime / Fibonacci for example). The only way you can do this is to rework the program until it's back to being a program beholden to events. You could solve most of this with a pre-emption mechanism. Allow an additional way to respond to certain inputs by registering an interrupt instead of listening to an event. function myInterrupt(preEmptedState) { interruptCounter+=1; //do something useful here setExecutionState(preEmptedState); //switch execution context back to pre-empted thread. } The parameter to the interrupt function is the execution state of the thread that was pre-empted. This can be restarted at the end of the interrupt, stored for continuation at a later time (enabling blocking), or abandoned (effectively terminating the thread). What this would need is: An execution state object, possibly an opaque object. addXXXInterruptHandler(interruptHandler) ;; XXX= Timer/Message/Input/etc. setExecutionState(newState) ;; this function would not return, it would continue the new state. createExecutionState(main) ;; generate a new execution state object ready to run the function main triggerInterrupt(interruptType) ;; Allow a tread to trigger an interrupt upon itself. If interrupts themselves are simply the running of a new execution state then TriggerInterrupt is just a special case of setInterruptState. Having this as a core would allow a huge number of higher level constructs that would enable blocking functions, and sane interactions with running processes like web workers. Yes, you would introduce the possibility of race conditions etc. but only if you actually used the new functionality. If you chose to leave it alone you would be on the old single eventy thready system that we know and hate. It would also mean you could have someone write var x=0; while(x<10) {} without it killing all scripts.

neilellis 12y ago
Interesting, I'd suggest that your solution would need to simplified dramatically to make it accessible or to be more under the hood. There is still a bit of room to shoot yourself in the foot. In terms of my suggestion it is simply that we need a language construct that creates a new scope without access to globals or 'this' and creates a pass by reference (i.e. deep cloned) closure. This allows for zero shared state. Then add back in access to no-shared state globals like HTTP access. Think web workers on a micro not macro scale.

silon3 12y ago

If you add shared memory threads (like in c++, c#, java) to Javascript, I'm disabling it forever.